Loading judgment…
Facts
The DCIT filed appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 against the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2016-17, the CIT(A) had deleted a disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) regarding payments to HUDA, while the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 due to jurisdictional issues and the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN).
Held
For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restored the legal grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes on the merits. For AY 2017-18, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, as its tax effect fell below the monetary threshold specified by CBDT Circular No.09/2024.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia); validity of reassessment proceedings due to jurisdictional issues and lack of DIN; and maintainability of appeal below monetary threshold.
Sections Cited
40(a)(ia), 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These appeals in & 213/Del/2023 for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, arise out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 16.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 148 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 23.02.2022 by the Assessing Officer, JCIT, Central Circle-4, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
Identical issues are raised in both the appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
& 213/Del/2023 M/s. MG Housing Pvt Ltd
In respect of appeal for AY 2016-17, the only issue to be decided is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payment made by the assessee to HUDA.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, the ld AR before us fairly conceded that this issue is decided against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reported in 462 ITR 326 (Del). However, the ld AR submitted before us that the assessee files Rule 27 petition under ITAT Rules challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings both on assumption of jurisdiction on the legality of the reassessment order for want of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order.
The grounds raised in the Rule 27 petition are legal in nature and does not require any factual verification and hence, they are admitted. We find that the validity of reassessment proceedings was challenged by the assessee before ld CIT(A) also. The ld CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee on merits and held that the adjudication of other grounds need not be made. Since, no finding has been given by the ld CIT(A) on the legal issue raised by the assessee, the Bench deems it fit and appropriate to restore these grounds raised under Rule 27 petition to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue for AY 2016-17 is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) and allowed for statistical purposes.
Appeal for AY 2017-18 is having tax effect of Rs. 58,33,446/- as per Form-36 filed by the revenue. Hence the same falls below the threshold monetary limit enabling the revenue to prefer appeal before the Tribunal & 213/Del/2023 M/s. MG Housing Pvt Ltd in view of the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17/09/2024. Hence, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.